Namecoin Forum

Maleable transactions(as addressed by MtGox)
This is today the most heated discussion topic by cryptocoiners so I would like to post some related topic links and eventually discuss how far is Namecoin affected by this so called Bitcoin design 'flaw'.
If there is not a design flaw but more a MtGox excuse, and especially Namecoin is not affected at all then maybe it is the wrong category.
Some related links:
https://www.mtgox.com/press_release_20140210.html
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/02/ ... -responds/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2096060/ ... fraud.html
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/10093/transa ... test-woes/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=458074.0
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comment ... ox/cf99yac
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comment ... _at_mtgox/
https://gist.github.com/sipa/8907691
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_Malleability

Litecoiners as I see even try to use this situation to propagate their own coins over BTC giving the impression as LTC would be better but recognizing in their own forum that if Bitcoin is affected then Litecoin also.

I see this as a low priority issue for normal users. Exchanges need to check their code but if they did it right they should be safe. Let's see what Bitcoin devs come up with if anything.

phelix wrote:I see this as a low priority issue for normal users. Exchanges need to check their code but if they did it right they should be safe. Let's see what Bitcoin devs come up with if anything.

The only solution envisaged is to refuse tx with bad formatted signatures. That is what was planned for bitcoin, but before doing that all bitcoin softwares must use the correct way to sign (some bitcoin dev look in the blockchain to follow this since several months/years).
As this is not a critical issue, I guess the bitcoin devs won't force the hardfork (instead, merchants should detect this and recognize good/bad signatures as the same).

Transaction malleability destroys an idea I had for allowing names in cold storage to automatically renew. I was planning to have a chain of unconfirmed renew transactions which could be broadcast/mined every 24000 blocks or so, but that relies on txid's not being maliciously changeable. So, I think malleability should definitely be eliminated. I think the Bitcoin devs agree; they're just trying to do it right rather than doing a half-assed rushed job.